Loading...
PL 06/20/1984 - 30622.., � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONMISSION MEETING, JUNE 20, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: . � Chairwoman Schnabel called the June 20, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel� Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba Members Absent: Mr. Minton Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Specialist Gary & Cheryl Michurski, 298 Ely St. N.E. Don Hanson, 1482 Onondaga St. N.E. APPROVAL OF JUNE 6, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY 1�LS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE JUNE 6, 1989, ^ PLANNING COMMISSION 1�IINUTES AS WRITTEN. �` UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTSNG AYE, CXAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED TXE MOTION CARRIED UNANIINOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #84-11, BY CHERYL A. MICHURSKI: Per Section 205.07.1, 3 A o t e ri ley City Co e, to allow t e construction of a second accessory building, a 22 ft. by 24 ft. detached garage on Lots 47 and 48, Block 11, Spring Brook Park, the same being 298 Ely Street N.E. 1HOTION BY 1NR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY J�fR. OQUIST, TO OPEN TXE PUBLIC BEARING ON SP �84-11. UPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCXNRBEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC EEARING OPEN AT 7 s 33 P.!!. Mr. Robinson stated this lot was located on the southeast corner of Ely St. and Ruth St. The lot is approximately 8,680 sq. ft. The special use permit is for a second accessory building, a 22 ft. by 24 ft. garage, to be built in the rear yard and be set back 30 ft. from Ruth St. to make it compatible with the existing house to the rear which faces Ruth St. According to code, when the lot to the rear of a corner lot faces the side street, the setback is 30 ft. He stated he had discussed this with the petitioner and she is agreeable to that. Mr. Robinson stated the other stipulation vias that the dr9veway be paved, � and the petitioner is also agreeable to that. PLANNING CONa1ISSI0N MEETING, JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE 2 �� Mr. Robinson stated there is an alley there that is an unpaved. unimproved alley. The petitioner might want to consider petitioning to have it vacated. � Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioners if they had any conments �o make about this request. Mr. Gary Michurski stated the neighbor directly to the east also has a double unattached garage at the back of his house. He stated the only reason they are considering this garage is because they have an existing single car garage. They own three vehicles. Since they both work. they have to cont�nue to move the three vehicles, and one ends up left on the street more than it should. He stated they have one vehicle they use seasonally, and they would like to store it in the garage. He stated they will continue to use the existing garage as a garage. Ms. Schnabel stated that if the Michurski's wanted the additional property in their back yard, they might want to approach their neighbors about requesting the City to vacate that alley. 1�IOTION BY 1rIR. SABA� SECONDED BY 1�15. GABEL, TO CIDSE THE PUBLIC XEARING ON SP �184—I1. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CXAIRWOl�fAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE PIIBLIC XEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 P.1N. 1NOTION BY MR. KONDRZCIC, SECONDED BY 1�Il4. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST� SP �189-11� BY CHERYL A. MICHURSKI� PER SECTION 205.07.1� 3 A� OF TXE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOFI THE CONSTRUC— TION OF A SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING, A 22 FT. BY 24 FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON LOTS 47 AND 48� BLOCK 11, SPRING BaZDOK PARK, TNE SAME BEING 298 ELY STREET N.E.� WITX TNE STIPi7LATION TXAT TXE DRIVEWAY TO TA� �f1EFl CARA�E BE PAVED AND A 30 FT. SETBACK BE MAINTAINED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CXAI�JOMAN SCXNASEL DECLARED THE 1NOTION CARRIED UNA17I1HOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this special use permit request would go to City Council on July 2. 2. LOT SPLIT_REQUEST, L.S. #84-08, BY DON HANSON : Split off the Southerly 12T� feet of Lot 28—, A�itor s Sub ivision No.129, to make a new bui7ding site at 1501 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Mr. Robinson stated this lot was located between Onondaga St. and 73rd Ave., just west of the 73'2 Ave. cu] de sac. The 7ot is quite ]arge, 34,000 sq, ft. The proposed new lot wculd be to the south and would be 13,500 sq. ft. Mr. Robinson stated there are several very large lots that have the potential of being sp7it off in the future. For that reason, there is the potential that 7� could go through and end in another cul de sac. " _ ' .�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE 3 Mr. Robinson stated there were quite a few pretty basic stipulations that would go with the lot sp]it. ' Mr. Robinson stated that at this time, the Planning Conmission could either , approve the lot split with stipulations, or they could hold n informal � inblic hearing and invite the neighbors to the west to see i� they were terested in spl�tting their lots as well, possibly putting the street in. and getting this all done at one time. That would be better than having the owner of the new lot put in a driveway to the cul de sac on 732 and then have to remove the driveway in the future if the street was put in. Mr. Robinson stated another consideration was the front yard setback. The exisitn house to the east is set back 65 ft. from what would be this lots's right of way, due to the cul de sac. If they were to tak an average of this lot and a possible future lot to the west of the proposed split, assuming a 35 ft. setback to the west, the average would be 50 ft. With an allowed deviation of 6 feet, the minimum setback for the proposed lot would be 44 ft. The rear yard would be 25 feet. The proposed right of way is 25 ft. and this leaves 27 ft. for a structure, which is a reasonable structure. Mr. Robinson stated Staff would recomnend the following stipulations: 1. Provide 25 ft. street easement for possible future use 2. Concrete curb work on 732 to be done by City's contractor at owner's expense � 3. Petitioner to provide dri�teway to street _ 4. Driveway to be removed at no cost to the City in the event the street goes through 5. Signed park fee agreement of $150 ' 6. Split to be registered at the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or before October 15, 1984. 7. Front yard setback of 44 ft. 8. Rear yar.d setback of 25 ft. Mr. Robinson stated this seemed like a good opportunity to look at the possible future development of that whole area. Perhaps the Planning Comnission should hold an informal public hearinq and table the lot s�lit at this time. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Hanson if he had talked to his neighbors about the possibility of the�r splitting their lots. Mr. Hanson stated he has talked to the neighbor who owns Lot 26� and he was not opposed to the idea. He stated there is a new owner of Lot 24 so he did not know the plans of the new owner. Ms. Schnabel stated that if the petitioner was not in a real hurry with the lot split. the Planning Comnission could table this until their July 18th meeting. This would giue the City the opportunity to contact all the owners of these lots to see if they are interested in splitting also, and invite them to an informal public hearing at the next meeting. She stated this ,�, would certainly be to the petitioner's advantage. Mr. Hanson stated he had no problem with having this tabled until the Planning Cortunission's July 18th meeting. v PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE 4 MOTION BY MR. KONDRZCK� SECONDED BY �2. SABA� 11D TABLE LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. #84-08, BY DON McCLUSKY IN ORDER TO HOLD AN INFORMAI� PUBLIC HEARING � WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON JULY 18� 1984. � UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECL.�IRED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE JUNE 12, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. NIELSEN, TO RECEIVE TXE JUNE 12, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. Ms. Gabel stated she would like the Planning Commission to discuss public hearings on lot splits. She was referring to the recent lot split requested by John Hitchcock on the corner of Mississippi St, and Oakley Drive. She stated once the neighbors were notified through the Appeals public hearing process, they came to the meeting en masse. The neighbors were definitely opposed to that lot split. She stated the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for variances. They felt the variances were created by the lot split, and that there was no hardship. Mr. Robinson stated he has discussed this with Mr. Qureshi, and it was Mr. Qureshi's suggestion that whenever the Planning Comnission feels a public hearing is necessary or helpful, they can table the discussion and notify the neighbors and have an informal public hearing, like what was done at this meeting. Ms. Gabel stated she did not agree with that. Based on the fact that the City is �s built up as it is, she felt they are going to have more and more lot split requests, and it is going to be more and more controversial. She felt that the neighbors who are affected have the right to be notified. She felt very strongly about this. Mr. Oquist stated his question would be: Why would they not want to have public hearings for lot splits? Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Gabel. They are going to be getting more lot split requests, they are going to be more and more complicated, and they are going to affect more and more people down the line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel asked if Staff could prepare some type of proposal for a change in the ordinance by the July 18th meeting. This could be used as a starting point for discussion. Mr. Robinson stated he cou7d do that. He stated he would like to discuss this with Dave Newman, City Attorney, and he would like to find out what neighboring comnunities are doing. � PLANNING COMNISSION MEETING, JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE 5 .-. ApJOURNMENT: MOTION BY 1�Il4. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN TNE MEETING. UPON A Y�ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� C9AIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TSE�JUN�`20, 1984, PLANNING COMM25SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.lN. Res ectfully su itted, Lyn�e Saba Recording Secretary e /��